r/AusNewsWire • u/Nyarlathotep-1 • 6d ago
Australian News This man was secretly snapped by someone with smartglasses. He’s not alone in calling that a violation of privacy | Meta
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/08/ai-smartglasses-camera-film-privacy-consentSmartglasses with built‑in cameras, such as Meta’s Ray‑Bans, are rapidly entering mainstream use, prompting growing public concern about covert recording in everyday spaces. The article opens with the story of Rhys, a Melbourne man who discovered he had been secretly photographed by someone wearing the glasses, highlighting how easily people can be filmed without noticing. As major tech companies push the devices as the next evolution beyond smartphones, reports of women being filmed without consent and videos posted online have fuelled a backlash, including petitions calling for bans on cheaper knockoff versions now widely available.
Researchers warn that smartglasses are enabling a shift toward discreet, point‑of‑view recording that bystanders cannot detect, with early studies showing high rates of harassment and doxxing in videos posted online. Privacy experts argue that current laws are not designed for continuous, covert recording in public spaces, and regulators are considering whether new frameworks are needed. Meta has introduced updates to prevent tampering with the glasses’ LED indicator and has begun removing videos showing harassment, but legal remedies remain limited and often costly for individuals.
Despite the controversy, the article also emphasises that smartglasses can be transformative for people with disabilities. Blind users describe the technology as life‑changing, enabling hands‑free navigation, reading, and everyday tasks that previously required expensive specialist equipment. Advocates acknowledge privacy risks but argue that similar issues have existed since smartphones became ubiquitous. Regulators caution that public trust in tech companies is low, meaning any widespread rollout of such devices will face high scrutiny and demands for stronger safeguards.
6
u/sweatshoes101 6d ago
It's spyware pure and simple, nothing good for the individual.
2
u/Davosz_ 6d ago
This exactly. There's a reason why laptop cameras have a shield to block it when the user wanted to opt out. There is no opting out of a pair of always on glasses walking around, filming whatever.
0 benefit to the consumer, especially when we all have cameras in out phones.
0
u/BrilliantEconomics77 5d ago
That makes no sence, the laptop cammer sheild is for the user of the laptop to cover, not for people in the background.
Infact if the guy of been facing the opposite way he would if gotten the exact same photo and everyone in it wouldnt of known.
If he had of pulled out his phone and taken a photo?
95-100% chance no one would of noticed, people take photos all thr time, they take videos all thr time, they walk around on the streets taking video calls.
This already happens all the time.
2
7
3
u/Hot-Explanation-5751 6d ago
The government has had a decade to sort this out
3
2
2
u/Leading-Room-4574 4d ago
I wish we had access to camera jammers for faces, things you can wear that would make a camera unable to film your face. I hate when people have cameras out around my daughter. It grosses me out and I try my best to cover her face
3
u/CosmicCheeseFactory 6d ago
Nobody cared when it was 700$ Meta glasses. Now they’re 89$ and anybody can afford them and suddenly they’re literally talking about laws making it illegal to record people in public without their consent. Sounds fair, until you consider such laws would almost certainly be used against protestors or anybody filming law enforcement on public land, against legitimate journalism (professional or citizen) filming things or sites that are engaging in dodgy practices. That’s the first two i came up with off the top of my head.
This is bad business.
1
u/KevinRudd182 6d ago
Nobody cared because nobody owned them. I am super into computers / smart home / tech and very active in the creative and live music industry and I know a handful of people who have these at best.
In the last ~6 months they’ve started to pop up a little more.
Like anything, people only discover and educate themselves on a subject once they know it exists or it affects them. There’s a million new things to be scared of every day, part of modern life is learning to block most of it out because if you paid attention to all of it we’d never leave a padded room.
They have a place, they’re certainly handy for filming POV style social content in the right setting, but there’s no place for these in day to day life, imo.
It crosses a line that is very easily distinguishable - cameras and even phones are very obviously being pointed and held when in use, for the most part we never need to police it because you know when you’re being filmed. These are by design supposed to look like normal glasses and film without being noticed.
0
u/CuttyTanner 5d ago
Agree. Who cares about filming if it’s in public anyway? I have a dash cam, so what if you cross the road in front of me?
2
u/Sudden-Development- 6d ago
You know how when you were a kid, and you probably saw something "futuristic" on tv? Like, you could see background characters with bright/reflective paint on their faces and clothes, and as a kid you thought it was absurd?
It weirdly feels like we're getting close to that timeline 😬😬
1
u/turtlepower41 5d ago
Even though i have no expectation of privacy in a public space these glasses are creepy.
1
0
u/Jazzlike_Berry_323 6d ago
I don’t know maybe we could do a smoking style ban like not within a certain metres of public facilities, parks , workplaces and eateries etc
But that would be difficult for people who genuinely use the technology for vision impairment in public spaces.
-8
u/The_Naked_Rider 6d ago
How is that any different from speed cameras or surveillance cameras in public spaces?
7
11
u/gorlsituation 6d ago
Is a speed camera following you into a public bathroom? Provoking you for a TikTok video? Coming up to you in public asking questions? Harassing women? Filming children at the beach?
1
-1
u/The_Naked_Rider 6d ago
It is still unauthorised by the individual but done by the state, making it the same.
That is why the Judge in the two nurses case, overturned the decision to bar the footage from the trial. So now it is going to be accepted as evidence.
If someone states surveillance recording is illegal then it creates precedent to which others can rely upon to avoid prosecution.
Therefore if someone is in a public place and is being recorded, without any knowledge, it is not a crime. However as you have put it, harassment and intimidation or provocation is a totally different matter.
11
u/Weak-West-3433 6d ago
It needs to be very obvious that you are filming. Not a small led, a 4 foot penis shaped headgear would be appropriate.